Issues: Whether the petitioner was properly denied a personal residence exemption (PRE) for property located in the respondent-City; Review of Tax Tribunal (TT) decisions; Great Lakes Div. of Nat'l Steel Corp. v. City of Ecorse; Const. 1963, art. 6, § 28; MCL 211.7cc(2) & dd(c); Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Lansing Twp.; ProMed Healthcare v. Kalamazoo

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: Trifonov v. City of Eastpointe

e-Journal Number: 58431

Judge(s): Per Curiam – Meter, Whitbeck, and Riordan


Where there was some evidence that the petitioner was actually occupying a home in Hazel Park during the subject tax years, the court held that the TT did not err by denying the petitioner's request for a PRE for property located in respondent-City of Eastpointe. The TT concluded that the petitioner had not proven that the Eastpointe address was his "principal residence" by a preponderance of the evidence. The court reviewed the evidence, including a water bill, driver's licenses and a voter registration card, and concluded that it tended "to refute petitioner's claims about the Eastpointe address," thus, the court could not find that the TT's "decision was unsupported by competent, material, and substantial evidence . . . ." Although the petitioner did "make certain colorable arguments concerning this evidence on appeal," it was the TT that had to weigh the evidence, not the court. The petitioner's allegation that the TT prevented him from presenting arguments that would have clarified the evidence in his favor was without merit, and "[g]iven the deferential standard of review," the court would not reverse the TT's decision. Affirmed.


Full Text Opinion
Back to e-Journal Mobile
News/Moves | Classifieds | Contacts | Full Version

© 2014 State Bar of Michigan